the worst part wasn't the leftist justices getting basic facts about COVID wrong, it was them debating the efficacy of vaccines when their job is to decide if mandating them is legal/constitutional
Of course it is, we have mandated vaccines for years...Polio, Small Pox, Diptheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Hepatitis B, Vaircella, Meningococcal, Hepatitis A. https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/school-requirements.aspx I still can't believe some idiots who probably couldn't pass HS biology are calling this an invasion of privacy. Looking squarely at you Commodore! You don't like the countries rules GET THE **** OUT! DD
Those are state mandates, not federal. The question before the supreme court is if the federal government is permitted to mandate vaccines in the constitution (its obviously not). Also you are trying to argue its constitutional because its been done before which is a dumb argument.
The courts already ruled that the federal government can invoke vaccination mandates, and the government has done so since at least 1904, when the right of government to impose vaccines was established by the Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts. In a 7-to-2 ruling, the Court said Cambridge, Massachusetts could require all adults to be vaccinated against smallpox. And by 1922, in another case, Justice Brandeis, writing for unanimous court, upheld childhood school mandates, calling it settled law. https://www.history.com/news/smallpox-vaccine-supreme-court The basis for the ruling applies in this case too: Biden's vaccination mandate clearly is a response "to a great danger as the safety of the general public demands". And is "a reasonable means for achieving a public good". In addition, the federal government set up the Childhood Immunization Initiative aimed to increase vaccination rates amongst children against seven diseases: Diptheria, measles, mumps, pertussis, poliomyelitis, rubella, and tetanus. The CDC currently recommends that children from 0 to 6 to get 29 doses of 9 vaccines, including a yearly flu shot after 6 months old. Now of course, we also know that the current trump supreme court is an activist court that ignores precedence when it suits their partisan purposes, so who knows how they rule... in fact, along with being the coathanger court it is possible they will be known as the COVID coathanger court...
Federal gov mandate vaccination (military, others). I’m not following the case (the court is political and the conservative as a whole will rule based on politics) but I’m guessing it has nothing much to do with actual power to mandate vaccination (established) but something much more narrower - mandating it through OSHA. Does OSHA law gives the fed gov the power to mandate vaccination or testing? I’m pretty sure it will be a 6-3 or 5-4 ruling of NO.
And then afterwards the retrumplican members of the court will whine about the criticism they deservedly get for partisan rulings for their right-wing activism as they rule in partisan lockstep against the public good.
Clearly a ruling that Cambridge, Massachusetts can require vaccination is not a ruling that the Federal government can require vaccination, because the city council of Cambridge, Massachusetts is not the Federal government, but rather the municipal government. The Federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers (or at least the Constitution says it is, this has seemingly been ignored for the past 90 years or so), and as such, cannot do that which it is not specifically empowered to do, even where states and municipalities may have the same powers denied the Federal government (including the general police power which is specifically cited by Justice Brandeis in Zucht v. King (1922) 260 U.S. 174 as the basis of the state/municipality's power to mandate vaccination). They may now find the power of the Federal government to vaccinate under the interstate commerce clause (where precedent says you can find basically whatever power you want), but the previously cited precedents would not be applicable to vaccine mandates imposed by the President's executive orders.
It’s partisan either ways. Just the nature of today environment and the Robert court after Trump. This will be more about regulation than vaccination.
The argument in front of the supreme court is can the federal government force private companies to mandate vaccines. It has nothing to do with federal employees.
I don't think it's that's the broad. Because you clearly do, you started off thinking the Fed Gov doesn't mandate, which was incorrect. Unless there is more than just OSHA at play here (again, I haven't followed closely) I think it's more about regulation than about vaccination. Can the fed gov (or more precisely, POTUS EO) requires companies through OSHA law to vaccinate or test for a contagious virus?
It is correct. You just dishonestly defined mandating as not what pertains to the case i.e. mandating government employees. You consider this stupidity some kind of meaningful point.
I didn't say it was... I did say the ruling allows the government (federal or state) to make a response "to a great danger as the safety of the general public demands". And is "a reasonable means for achieving a public good". Both clearly true with Biden's vaccine mandate.
Supreme Court blocks Biden Covid vaccine mandate for businesses, allows health-care worker rule https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/13/supreme-court-ruling-biden-covid-vaccine-mandates.html
The covid coathanger court ruled as expected... ruling in favor of COVID-19. The republican justices ruled as a block, as expected. And tomorrow they will whine about being criticized and say they don't rule by politics.
